America discovered earlier

Some people in this thread are barking up the wrong tree. Guns didn't matter very much IOTL except in the very first encounters.

Really. Jared Diamond is only 2/3 right in his famous book; germs and steel mattered far more than guns. His book should have been titled "Germs, Steel, and Allies" or "Ships, Germs, and Steel" (since those ships allowed the Europeans to reach the Americas in the first place) if it wanted to be a more accurate representation of the Spanish conquest.

Now, firearms weren't useless. They had a high rate of fire which could shatter organized charges of Mexica troops, especially since Mesoamerican commanders led at the front. The noise did have a psychological impact, shocking the Mesoamericans who had never been acquainted with a remotely similar thing. But it didn't last. The Mexica very quickly realized that the noise and smoke were irrelevant and that guns shot in a straight line, and they changed their pre-gun tactics of frontal charges by dodging to the sides when cannons or muskets fired. During the Siege of Tenochtitlan, the Mexica used armored canoes which were impervious to gunpowder. Mesoamerican armies were disciplined and could overcome new and unfamiliar weapons (similarly, the Mexica responded capably to horses with pikes and pits and choosing broken terrain). Besides, the powder periodically spoiled due to humidity. By the last year of the Conquest Cortes was trying to build catapults because he didn't have enough gunpowder to fire cannons.

Even if the Mexica had not adapted to firearms, their effectiveness would have been limited because there were so few of them. And since there were few roads ready to transport huge lumps of metal (Americans did not use wheels for transportation, so roads were meant for human or llama traffic rather than wagons or horses) cannons were also extremely cumbersome to transport, especially in Mexico and the Andes which are defined by mountains and do not have any rivers criss-crossing the entire region. Besides being rare, guns were heavy, slow, dangerous, needed tripods (also rare) to support the barrels, and were easily damaged. Muskets or volley firing did not exist when Cortes dismembered the Mexica state and Pizarro destroyed the Inca empire, making guns even less effective. So most conquistadors just used guns as metal clubs after firing them once, or else dropped them to concentrate on wielding their sword and retrieved them later.

The more effective European weapons like horses and more importantly steel swords were already everywhere throughout Eurasia by Han and Roman times, never mind the 14th century. Cortes could have carried out the conquest without any guns, but without the Mexica empire (which created a common enemy against which the Spaniards could recruit allies) I doubt Cortes could have won with twice the guns he had.
 
Even if the Mexica had not adapted to firearms, their effectiveness would have been limited because there were so few of them. And since there were few roads ready to transport huge lumps of metal (Americans did not use wheels for transportation, so roads were meant for human or llama traffic rather than wagons or horses) cannons were also extremely cumbersome to transport, especially in Mexico and the Andes which are defined by mountains and do not have any rivers criss-crossing the entire region.

Pizarro's expedition brought a field piece through the swamps and over the Andes OTL. It didn't come by ship. Yes it's difficult, but when there's a will, there's a way.

Besides being rare, guns were heavy, slow, dangerous, needed tripods (also rare) to support the barrels, and were easily damaged.

What do we mean by guns? Arquebousses (the typical weapon of the 1520s) didn't need a rest at all though it helped if you had one. But they were commonly used by light infantry screening pikemen, for example. Any heavier weapons (hook-guns, swivel-guns, light cannon) did need a tripod or a wall or something solid. Later muskets were much heavier than arquebousses and did need a fork to support them.

Muskets or volley firing did not exist when Cortes dismembered the Mexica state and Pizarro destroyed the Inca empire, making guns even less effective.

Volley fire was in its early stages but definitely existed already. The real question is, would the Spanish expeditions have used it. I'm going to go with no: most of Cortes' men had no real military training, and Pizarro had a literal handful of soldiers even if they were more professional. On top of that, the number of gunners and crossbowmen was fairly low to start with. There would have been no advantage to volley fire anyway.

The more effective European weapons like horses and more importantly steel swords were already everywhere throughout Eurasia by Han and Roman times, never mind the 14th century. Cortes could have carried out the conquest without any guns, but without the Mexica empire (which created a common enemy against which the Spaniards could recruit allies) I doubt Cortes could have won with twice the guns he had.

I think the key point here is centralized states and settled populations which can be defeated in a few key moments and then occupied and exploited for food and such. Alvarado wasn't really achieving a whole lot in Guatemala until his opponents decided to offer him organised resistance and met him on the field, where his (tiny band) of cavalry swung the battle in his favour and started a chain reaction of defeats and surrenders for the local nations.
 
Last edited:
I think so. They were the financiers of the time and could have funded some daring expedition(s). Once they saw the opportunity for profit, they'd happily invest more in follow-ons. Anyway, that could lead to the first colonies.

The physically (and militarily) larger powers would soon get involved, but you could certainly have some substantial colonies controlled from those Italian states. The Spanish, Portuguese, et al would likely hem them in and grab the big areas. However, the Italians could have some substantial colonies that were 'protectable' enough to be secure and enduring domains -- Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Florida, and maybe the Yucatan. They could also make some early stops around the Carribbean coasts and Northern South America.

If things shaped up this way, it would lead to an earlier introduction of disease and technology to the natives, but on a smaller, slower scale. Thus, when the Spanish et al started coming in greater numbers, the natives would likely be more resistant and knowledgeable.
But isn't the journey more arduous from Italy than from Atlantic Europe?
 

jahenders

Banned
And why would Spain let them carry on to the New World?

1) In 1400, what we call Spain wasn't even a single country. It was made up of Castille, Aragon, Navarro, and Grenada. Grenada (which controlled present Gibraltor) was a Muslim kingdom.
2) There was really no reason should care about a few vessels paid for by Italian by merchants cruising off into the Atlantic -- it wasn't an unheard of thing
3) Spain certainly had no way of knowing where those ships would be headed, nor any reason to care if they sailed off to the unknown to their doom
 
1) In 1400, what we call Spain wasn't even a single country. It was made up of Castille, Aragon, Navarro, and Grenada. Grenada (which controlled present Gibraltor) was a Muslim kingdom.
2) There was really no reason should care about a few vessels paid for by Italian by merchants cruising off into the Atlantic -- it wasn't an unheard of thing
3) Spain certainly had no way of knowing where those ships would be headed, nor any reason to care if they sailed off to the unknown to their doom
Sailors talk.
 
I always wondered if Henry II's people discovered North America. Think if Richard went to the new world instead of on crusade. Henry could send Eleanor there to get him out of his hair.
 
I really don't see the Italians getting involved; the Americas (and Atlantic exploration in general) were big gambles with potential payoffs; the Venetians and Genoese have much safer ways of making money.

It could still be the Castilians or Portuguese ITTL; Grenada exists, true enough, but they are essentially a Castillian tributary state that exists solely for back and forth raids. They aren't a serious military threat.

As for the effects? The Andes are a bunch of disorganized warring states, which can be conquered individually, but are less attractive; it may be slower to fall. Disease was still devastating to native populations well into the 19th century (epidemics regularly devastated the Plains tribes), so the Natives won't be spared that unpleasantness. Guns were never prominent in the early conquests; they were significant by the time the English colonies were pushing west, but that's centuries after the initial contact. Horses and armor are still basically the same, and were the decisive factors (a lot of Pizarro's success came from being nigh invulnerable to native weaponry and able to travel many times faster than his enemies; armor was less important against the Aztecs, but the power of a mounted charge was shocking to everyone who faced it).

One issue that might be of potential interest is the lack of the printing press; OTL tales of the exotic West Indes spread like wildfire and encouraged not only more conquistadors but also other nations to become interested, while an argument has been made that the popular chivalric literature (of the type satirized by Don Quixote) also helped inspire a lot of conquistadors (note that e.g. California was named for the island of the Amazons in one of those novels). The printing press will be invented soon enough, but it might slow down some of the expansion at first; not enough to save the native empires, but possibly enough that diseases will have had even more time to devastate the existing civilizations. OTL the Aztecs and Inca were encountered shortly before (Aztecs) or after (Inca) the major epidemics struck those civilizations. Compare with North America, where most of the local civilizations had already been more or less destabilized by the time that European contact really goes beyond the occasional de Soto-style expedition. Without the evidence of major states in the Americas, both the process of conquest and the attitudes towards Native Americans might be very different. OTL, there was significant tension in Spanish America as to the status of Native peoples. The (very detailed) Spanish racial hierarchy generally put them in an intermediate place between whites and Africans (for instance, someone with one-quarter or less Native blood could be considered white for legal and social purposes, while no amount of European or Native blood could allow someone of African ancestry to achieve that status). They were still heavily mistreated and enslaved, but also glamorized (with certain descendants of the various royal houses being granted titles of nobility, and Native land claims being used to justify ownership for generations to come). You might see a very different portrayal if the states collapsed, more like how they were viewed in the English colonies, where even "positive" portrayals tended to go for more of a "noble savage" aspect.
 
Sailors talk about a lot of things, including krakens.
And in that time period, sailors who talk to much about Portuguese endeavours on the West Coast of Africa for example, tend to have an unpleasant end. Especially if they have maps with them
 
Italian colonization... you'd need to go a bit more back, probably - first years of 1300. There was a lot of overpopulation, average wages were falling, but the economy bases found in Renaissance Italy were there (if budding). 1392? Only Milan could conceivably decide to send settlers, as the neighbours were too busy recovering from the demographic collapse of the Black Death; but yet again, Milan was under Gian Galeazzo Visconti and quite busy emphasizing said collapse by conquering everything at hand. Nah, the Italians are out.
 
One potential route towards colonization could lie with the Holy Roman Empire.

1. Adam of Bremen (also: Adamus Bremensis) was a German medieval chronicler. He lived and worked in the second half of the eleventh century. He is most famous for his chronicle Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum (Deeds of Bishops of the Hamburg Church). Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum ("Deeds of the Bishops of Hamburg") is a historical treatise written between 1073 and 1076 by Adam of Bremen, who made additions (scholia) to the text until his death (possibly 1081; before 1085). It is one of the most important sources of the medieval history of Northern Europe, and the oldest textual source reporting the discovery of coastal North America. It covers the entire period known as the Viking Age, from the foundation of the bishopric under Willehad in 788 until the rule of prince-bishop Adalbert in Adam's own time (1043–1072). The text focusses on the history of the Hamburg-Bremen diocese and its bishops. As the bishops had jurisdiction over the missions to Scandinavia, it is also gives a report of the Norse paganism of the period.

2. Adalbert of Hamburg (also Adelbert or Albert; c. 1000 – 16 March 1072) was Archbishop of Hamburg and Bishop of Bremen from 1043 until his death. Called Vikar des Nordens, he was an important political figure of the Holy Roman Empire, papal legate, and one of the regents for Emperor Henry IV.

POD
In 1066 or 1067 he was invited by archbishop Adalbert of Hamburg to join the Church of Bremen.Adam was accepted among the capitulars of Bremen, and by 1069 he appeared as director of the cathedral's school.Soon thereafter he began to write the history of Bremen/Hamburg and of the northern lands in his Gesta. His position and the missionary activity of the church of Bremen allowed him to gather information on the history and the geography of Northern Germany. A stay at the court of Svend Estridson gave him the opportunity to find information about the history and geography of Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries. Adalbert of Hamburg was nominally in charge of island and other far away nothern colonies. He was also as mentioned above a friend of Henry III and regent of Henry IV. If anyone could get the Emperor to finance a substainalbe permaent mission/crusade into Vinland it would be him.He although he probalby wouln't have enough time left to see the success of such an expedition. Its a pretty rough draft but there should be something to this idea, in my oppinon.

Source:
Wikipedia
 
Tell that to a macua'hital AKA aztec obsidian bladed Cricket bat that were known for lopping off horse heads in one swing.
Sure, but unlike in South America, the climate meant that conquistadors didn't actually wear metal armor much; cotton armor was perfectly adequate for most needs, and everyone had access to it.

Did metal add some extra protection over cloth? Sure, but not enough to make up for the drawbacks. Which is why it was not actually used that often in the conquest of Mexico.
 
America discovered earlier =/= America used earlier. One needs to have the population to support a sustained colonization effort, along with ships that can cross the Atlantic (the Atlantic is nearly as large as the Mediterranean but without any stopping points), and a government that can pay for it. The only times that this was possible before 1492 was just before the Black Plague, when the vikings were running around (and even then population and wealth would be a big problem), and possibly something with Mali (The dude before Mansa Musa may-or-may-not have tried to cross the ocean, but there is no evidence that he made it, or if there was evidence, it is long gone).

Anything before that there isn't the population to make colonization work.
 
Another alternative is the slow, much earlier "diffusion colonization" starting in Asia, like it is described here:

The most likely point for the beginnings of Ainu in America would probably be the Middle Jomon period, a period in which the climate was warm, the seas higher and the population surplus. It is believed by scholars that OTL the Jomon expansion reached America, so we just fiddle with it and make it so the Jomon are able to colonise the Aleutians with a better navigational package. This period, coincident with the Holocene Climatic Optimum, is around 3000-2000 BC.

Things will slow down, a lot, as the temperature cools. For a millenia I don't see much different, except perhaps some shifting around of people in Alaska as the Ainu displace Aleuts, who displace Eskimo peoples, etc. So far, the Jomon will have not expanded much further than the Aleutians. Another change happens in the Final Jomon period, 1000 BC to 400, when the Jomon people are displaced by the Yayoi culture. Unlike OTL, the Jomon are somewhat familiar (or at least aware) with the lands to the East and have a more naval experience, so some flee eastward, pushing the expansion of the Ainu peoples to the Alaska and down the Pacific northwest coastline.

During the Yayoi period (500 BC to 300 AD), there develops trade links stretching along the Ainu coast to Hokkaido, bringing a variety of items to the Pacific Northwest: tools of stone, bronze and iron and domesticated pigs. Rice may make the jump, or the more traditional Ainu crops of deccan grass, wheat and millet. This trade is likely to continue, a trickle from Asia to the New World. However, if this trickle continues to flow from the Yayoi period onwards, thats almost two thousand years of diffusion. Even with the inherant limitations, that must have a huge effect..
 
Top